GENIUS FORUMS

kowtaaia wrote:

sschaula wrote:

Are you saying that knowledge of the fundamental creating force of all things can have no effect on one's delusions?

Yes, it can have no effect on certain delusions. Like the unconscious tendency to become nervous when seeing a beautiful woman...that's a delusion right there. A person who knows the fundamental creating force of all things can still have that.

The 'Genius forum', eh? The "unconscious tendency to become nervous etc., etc.," is not a delusion.

I'm sure he meant that the "reason" for becoming nervous is a delusion. Women who happen to be symmetrical, have a good complexion, be height/weight appropriate, whose bodies are exhibiting the effects of a desired hormone balance, etc. are not a cause for nervousness. Beautiful people are the same as anybody else - and often are actually even more insecure than average-appearing individuals. I imagine that is what Scott meant by "delusion."

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

kowtaaia wrote:What's the deal with the widespread usage of argumentum ad hominem, on this forum?

People argue here, and what is ad hominem seems to be a matter of opinion.

Please specify what you consider ad hominem by citing specific examples.

There's nothing wrong with argument, challenge, debate; as long as it pertains to assertions and not asserters. What 'argumentum ad hominem' is, is not a matter of opinion.
There's no need to repeat the insults of others.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

kowtaaia wrote:

sschaula wrote:

Are you saying that knowledge of the fundamental creating force of all things can have no effect on one's delusions?

Yes, it can have no effect on certain delusions. Like the unconscious tendency to become nervous when seeing a beautiful woman...that's a delusion right there. A person who knows the fundamental creating force of all things can still have that.

The 'Genius forum', eh? The "unconscious tendency to become nervous etc., etc.," is not a delusion.

I'm sure he meant that the "reason" for becoming nervous is a delusion. Women who happen to be symmetrical, have a good complexion, be height/weight appropriate, whose bodies are exhibiting the effects of a desired hormone balance, etc. are not a cause for nervousness. Beautiful people are the same as anybody else - and often are actually even more insecure than average-appearing individuals. I imagine that is what Scott meant by "delusion."

The chap said: "the unconscious tendency to become nervous when seeing a beautiful woman", is a delusion. It's in black and white.

I meant what Elizabeth said. My apologies for being unclear.

I suppose there isn't really a good enough reason to throw insults at people. My reason is that I'm just trying to get them unstuck from their behavioral patterns. Plus sometimes I get annoyed.

Sometimes only discussing issues and not personal issues gets you far...but sometimes it hinders progress. If no one were attacked personally here, there would be little personal growth.

I suppose we can attack ourselves on a daily basis, if we care about truthfulness enough. And the only time attacks from someone else mean anything to us is when we seriously question them ourselves and begin attacking ourselves. So it's really impossible for a person to upset another...everyone does it to themselves.

But perhaps they won't do it if it's never brought up in conversation. They may continue on with their stupidity, constantly praising themselves for being so wise that they figured out the nature of reality...all the while missing their underlying delusions. So I guess for that reason, I insult people.

If you can't handle it...if there's too many fallacies for you...then don't pay attention to the fallacies but look at what's actually being said. As I told Sue - read between the lines. Get the main point of the message. It doesn't matter in what style it's delivered.

Cory,

“False spiritual work keeps you comfortable. Real spiritual work makes you uneasy.”

No, I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to this quotation:

“Make the pain get worse so you can see it. Let the pain get as bad as we can bear and then add to it.”

As I said, he's dodging cars in the middle of the street instead of simply crossing to the other side.

kow,

There's nothing wrong with argument, challenge, debate; as long as it pertains to assertions and not asserters. What 'argumentum ad hominem' is, is not a matter of opinion.
There's no need to repeat the insults of others.

You are right. 'Argumentum ad hominem' is a specific fallacy. Unfortunately, it is not present in this argument. If you disagree, find a case where someone takes an irrelevant known fact of another person's life to reduce the credibility of their argument.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:kow,

There's nothing wrong with argument, challenge, debate; as long as it pertains to assertions and not asserters. What 'argumentum ad hominem' is, is not a matter of opinion.
There's no need to repeat the insults of others.

You are right. 'Argumentum ad hominem' is a specific fallacy. Unfortunately, it is not present in this argument. If you disagree, find a case where someone takes an irrelevant known fact of another person's life to reduce the credibility of their argument.

Where the hell did you get the idea that an 'ad hom' is taking an irrelevant known fact of another person's life and using it to reduce the credibility of their argument"? It is simply attacking the messenger, instead of the message. Ad hominem = to the man.

Where the hell did you get the idea that an 'ad hom' is taking an irrelevant known fact of another person's life and using it to reduce the credibility of their argument"? It is simply attacking the messenger, instead of the message. Ad hominem = to the man.

If you go by the origin of the word, you are going to be incorrect. There are many things about a person's life which are relevant to the argument, and thus are logically permissable within it. "Don't attack the messenger," is what they tell first-year philosophy students so nobody's feelings get hurt. When feelings & the ego are no longer an issue, certain arguments that were once considered ad hominem are seen not to be so: certain comments about the messenger are logically valid, and add to the argument.

For example, when a certain member of this forum shows off his motorcycles and brags about how many chicks he fucks, and on the same day makes claims about what enlightenment is -- it is perfectly acceptable to bring up his lifestyle to dispute his claim.

Or, for a more academic example, when two people give a second-hand account of what another person said, you can believe one over the other based on each person's history.

sschaula wrote: I meant what Elizabeth said. My apologies for being unclear.

Is the reason a belief?

sschaula wrote: I suppose there isn't really a good enough reason to throw insults at people. My reason is that I'm just trying to get them unstuck from their behavioral patterns. Plus sometimes I get annoyed.

Sometimes only discussing issues and not personal issues gets you far...but sometimes it hinders progress. If no one were attacked personally here, there would be little personal growth.

I suppose we can attack ourselves on a daily basis, if we care about truthfulness enough. And the only time attacks from someone else mean anything to us is when we seriously question them ourselves and begin attacking ourselves. So it's really impossible for a person to upset another...everyone does it to themselves.

But perhaps they won't do it if it's never brought up in conversation. They may continue on with their stupidity, constantly praising themselves for being so wise that they figured out the nature of reality...all the while missing their underlying delusions. So I guess for that reason, I insult people.

If you can't handle it...if there's too many fallacies for you...then don't pay attention to the fallacies but look at what's actually being said. As I told Sue - read between the lines. Get the main point of the message. It doesn't matter in what style it's delivered.

Resorting to personal attack is not a style of debate. It is a demonstration of weakness.
How successfull have you been with using insult as a stimulus for what you call "personal growth"? Do you have any success stories to share? Could you name some of the fortunate people on this forum that have been lucky enough to grow because of your insults?

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:

Where the hell did you get the idea that an 'ad hom' is taking an irrelevant known fact of another person's life and using it to reduce the credibility of their argument"? It is simply attacking the messenger, instead of the message. Ad hominem = to the man.

If you go by the origin of the word, you are going to be incorrect. There are many things about a person's life which are relevant to the argument, and thus are logically permissable within it. "Don't attack the messenger," is what they tell first-year philosophy students so nobody's feelings get hurt. When feelings & the ego are no longer an issue, certain arguments that were once considered ad hominem are seen not to be so: certain comments about the messenger are logically valid, and add to the argument.

For example, when a certain member of this forum shows off his motorcycles and brags about how many chicks he fucks, and on the same day makes claims about what enlightenment is -- it is perfectly acceptable to bring up his lifestyle to dispute his claim.

Or, for a more academic example, when two people give a second-hand account of what another person said, you can believe one over the other based on each person's history.

Your claim is only correct with regard to your stupid example of motorcycle guy. The other stuff that you said is ridiculous.

kowtaaia wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

kowtaaia wrote:What's the deal with the widespread usage of argumentum ad hominem, on this forum?

People argue here, and what is ad hominem seems to be a matter of opinion.

Please specify what you consider ad hominem by citing specific examples.

There's nothing wrong with argument, challenge, debate; as long as it pertains to assertions and not asserters. What 'argumentum ad hominem' is, is not a matter of opinion.
There's no need to repeat the insults of others.

By

what is ad hominem seems to be a matter of opinion.

I meant that your opinion of what ad hominem means and the opinions of other people here about what ad hominem means are different. That is why I asked for apecific examples of what you thought was ad hominem so we could examine that.

The following exchange seems to indicate that I was right about there being a difference between your opinion and what others here think:

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:

kow wrote:Where the hell did you get the idea that an 'ad hom' is taking an irrelevant known fact of another person's life and using it to reduce the credibility of their argument"? It is simply attacking the messenger, instead of the message. Ad hominem = to the man.

If you go by the origin of the word, you are going to be incorrect. There are many things about a person's life which are relevant to the argument, and thus are logically permissable within it. "Don't attack the messenger," is what they tell first-year philosophy students so nobody's feelings get hurt. When feelings & the ego are no longer an issue, certain arguments that were once considered ad hominem are seen not to be so: certain comments about the messenger are logically valid, and add to the argument.

For example, when a certain member of this forum shows off his motorcycles and brags about how many chicks he fucks, and on the same day makes claims about what enlightenment is -- it is perfectly acceptable to bring up his lifestyle to dispute his claim.

Or, for a more academic example, when two people give a second-hand account of what another person said, you can believe one over the other based on each person's history.

kow wrote:

Resorting to personal attack is not a style of debate. It is a demonstration of weakness.

If it is each other's personal growth that we are trying to work on, oftentimes focusing on personal issues is not ad hominem because it is not irrelevant. There is a difference between relevant and irrelevant personal information, and I think the forum stays pretty well within those lines.

You're new kow; try reading a bit more and see if you understand better from seeing how other debates have worked out.

Is the reason a belief?

I don't know what you're talking about exactly...

I'll resummarize the point is clear english: if a man becomes nervous when seeing a beautiful woman, it's a sign that he has a delusion about women. Why that is relevent is that real wisdom is an absence of delusion. We were discussing why VH is or is not wise.

If there are any more problems with that specific point, make your case clearly understandable because I can be quite stupid sometimes.

Resorting to personal attack is not a style of debate. It is a demonstration of weakness.

You just called me weak...is this now a demonstration of your weakness, and not a debate between us?

Rule number one: don't fall for your own traps.

How successfull have you been with using insult as a stimulus for what you call "personal growth"?

It has worked in my case sometimes. If a person calls me out on something, it may take a little while for it to sink in, but I generally come to the conclusion that they were right and I move on a more developed person.

Do you have any success stories to share? Could you name some of the fortunate people on this forum that have been lucky enough to grow because of your insults?

No....no.

Do you have any success stories to share about your positive, non argumentative, non reactional attitude, which comes off so nicely here?

I think kowtipper has learned her lesson. Let's see if the edge is off that smart mouth after these rebukes. lol.

sschaula wrote:

Is the reason a belief?

I don't know what you're talking about exactly...

Delusion pertains to belief.

sschaula wrote:

Resorting to personal attack is not a style of debate. It is a demonstration of weakness.

You just called me weak...is this now a demonstration of your weakness, and not a debate between us?

Rule number one: don't fall for your own traps.

You are in error. There was no ad-hom, even though you took the comment personally.

sschaula wrote:

How successfull have you been with using insult as a stimulus for what you call "personal growth"?

It has worked in my case sometimes. If a person calls me out on something, it may take a little while for it to sink in, but I generally come to the conclusion that they were right and I move on a more developed person.

Do you have any success stories to share? Could you name some of the fortunate people on this forum that have been lucky enough to grow because of your insults?

No....no.

Son of a gun!

sschaula wrote: Do you have any success stories to share about your positive, non argumentative, non reactional attitude, which comes off so nicely here?

Non-sequitur. Only one of us made claims.

sschaula wrote:Do you have any success stories to share about your positive, non argumentative, non reactional attitude, which comes off so nicely here?

Read more Vernon!

;)

Okay kowtipper,

Delusion pertains to belief.

Was I being delusional in the point I made? No.

You are in error. There was no ad-hom, even though you took the comment personally.

So if I said people who say "you are in error" are morons...you shouldn't take that personally because I didn't specifically say "kowtipper, you're a moron"?

You are certainly a master debator.

Non-sequitur. Only one of us made claims.

You must have just gotten out of Philosophy 101.

My friend is going to school to become a chef at the Culinary Institute of America. It's very strict there...things have to be perfectly clean. You have to find a way to use all of your left over ingredients. You have to call the head chef, "Chef".

When he gets a job as a chef, he will come to find that the kitchen will most likely be a very laid back place. Many kitchens are. Most are unclean..ingredients are tossed into the wastebasket like it's nothing...the head chef usually goes by either his first name or his nickname that his coworkers gave him.

The same is with philosophy. You can point out logical fallacies all day long to long term philosophers and they'll just laugh at you. Sometimes I use fallacies just to make fun of someone. It doesn't take away from the arguments at hand. What is the argument at hand between us? You are whining that people here use insult eachother in the midst of serious discussion. I told you why it can be useful. You've continued whining and spewing out your non sequitur bullshit.

People here care about the truth and honesty, and not whether they're arguing in the correct fashion. If a person knows all of the fallacies and never missteps in their arguments, they can still easily be stupid and unwise.

Your post is non-sequitur. Justifying crude and ignorant undisciplined childish behaviour, by saying that you care about truth and honesty and the growth of others, is just mischievous bullshit.

Sue wrote:

What is it about Vernon’s work that made you think that he’d not go down well here?

I figured the first thing that would be criticized was the quote on the the main home page of vernon's site:



The Greatest Secret on Earth:

“What is it? By contacting a Higher Power, a man can live an entirely
new life, both in the here and now and in the there and hereafter.”




Why was that particular quote used as the quaint little awning marking the front home page?

Because there is nothing that a sick humans wants more than literal immortality and to be protected by a super intelligence outside of them.

I know this because I was sick in that way, and sometimes I still am one.

The desire for literal immortality and supernatural guidance is strong in humans, and any thinker who denies the existence of literal immortility and higher intelligences isnt interested in being the most popular human being - but the strongest.

And that's why, despite I despised Solway and Quinn (at least a first) I couldnt help but see a very rare level of strength in them.


But to this day I prefer literal immortality and higher supernatural intelligence. But something tells me its weak.

kowtaaia wrote:Your post is non-sequitur. Justifying crude and ignorant undisciplined childish behaviour, by saying that you care about truth and honesty and the growth of others, is just mischievous bullshit.

Yes. Well. your mother wears combat boots.

Kowdung,

Your post is non-sequitur. Justifying crude and ignorant undisciplined childish behaviour, by saying that you care about truth and honesty and the growth of others, is just mischievous bullshit.

That may be so. Why don't you go cry about it?

sschaula wrote: Why don't you go cry about it?

..because this forum is a riot and children can be so funny, especially when they think that they're helpful geniuses.

..because this forum is a riot and children can be so funny, especially when they think that they're helpful geniuses.

I'm glad you can see the humor in it.

I never refer to myself as a genius, though. I usually refer to myself as somewhat stupid. Hey...I didn't create the name for the forum.

Anyway, in your attempt to inflict some pain upon me by calling me a child, making fun of the fact that I post on a forum called the genius forum, and saying inadvertently that I'm not helpful....you've only done what you've condemned. You are as good as your own enemy here, and no better.

Now, I want you to see why what you've said of me is stupid...

It's obviously delusional to hold onto false beliefs. They may be conscious or subconscious...meaning that we may be aware of them or they may be forcing us to do things we wouldn't otherwise do if we were conscious of them.

People that post here desire enlightenment. They like the truth.

If someone posting here is shown where they have a false belief, that IS help to them. If they're unaware of the false belief, it's STILL help to them.

So why do you mockingly laugh and say, in your beat around the bush way, that I am not being helpful? Maybe because it doesn't work that well? Well, at least I've tried. What have you done, fuck head? You've just come onto the internet, reacted emotionally to strangers insulting eachother, and then tried to slither your way out of it by pretending you think it's funny. If you're gonna slither, keep going and don't come back here.

This place is for honest communication between people. This isn't an academic philosophy forum. Read some more posts and get a feel for it. This place is for confronting delusions head on.

Do you actually have the balls to stay? Or are you going to desperately hold onto what little ego you have and run out of here, crying and laughing at the same time? Fucking wuss.

Up until 5 minutes ago, you didn't even understand that 'delusion' pertained to 'belief', so sell your bullshit to someone that will buy it!

If there's one thing worse than a cunt, it's a cunt who pretends not to be one...

.

kowtaaia wrote:Quote:
Do you have any success stories to share? Could you name some of the fortunate people on this forum that have been lucky enough to grow because of your insults?


Scott: No....no.


Son of a gun!
.

Kow -
Obviously you have never heard of modesty. We all learn from each other. All of us.

Actually, it seems like you have just learned two new phrases: non-sequitar (which seems to be your favorite response) and ad hominem - which Trevor was able to instuct you in the proper definition of (BTW, people don't go around shortening it to "ad hom").

Kow - you came in here fussing about the way we interact, thinking you were seeing wrongful attacks when that's just a method we use for getting to Truth - and you turn around and start flailing wild attacks at various people. We're fine with how we're interacting with each other, but I don't see anybody who's fine with how you're attacking people. Does that tell you anything? Like maybe you misinterpreted some stuff and need to reconsider what you're really seeing?